LCD verses CRT

[doublejbass]

Well, that's about an hour of my life I'm never going to get back. The maturity level here is so freaking low, it's really sad.

Let me just give a contrary opinion to Hadsus' "side-by-side" comparison.

I had a Viewsonic VX910 (definitely the hottest looking LCD I've come across, from a design perspective) and after getting wooed by the arguments of the CRT lobby, I added a Mitsu 930SB to the array. I tried running a game on the VX910 @ 1280x1024, and then on the 930SB @ 1600x1200, using a 6800GT. I could barely tell the difference. I got rid of the 930SB when I realized that even my refined, discerning vision is apparently not good enough to appreciate the gaming advantages of a CRT, and I have 20/20 sight. Ghosting? I was able to notice ghosting on a 25ms panel if I tried, but beyond that? (And believe me, I ran tests, and looked) Nothing on any of the subsequent panels.

So, and this is just from the experience of someone who was trying to get the best setup I could reasonably come up with at a price I could live with....I ditched the CRTs, and ended up with a Viewsonic VX910 and Dell 2001FP.

Oh, but in the world of TVs? There was no contest, I use a Sony 30" WEGA CRT HDTV, the competition was hardly as formidable, as long as I was satisfied with 30-34".

 

[Hadsus]

Ok, I'll submit this non-hyped, cogent piece of logic for you all to think on as it relates to widescreen LCDs. What do we use our field-of-view for? While driving we are not only watching the car ahead of us but cars around us peripherally. It's a dynamically changing environment with interacting elements. Here's another.....movies. We are not only watching individual actors but we are viewing them in the whole of the scene. Their interaction with other characters and the environment in general. Our FOV, which is primarily landscaped, is something we use all the time in everyday life. What do we use our FOV for in the world of computer monitor viewing. Nothing. Nothing at all. We are reading words. We are focused on one thing at a time. It is not a dynamic environment....it is static. That's why widescreen computer monitors have no practical use beside widescreen games. HDTV and theaters where FOV is accommodated through widescreen pictures....I can see the application. But 18 inches in front of a computer monitor? Not only does it seem impossible for the 24" (or larger) to be taken in by your eyes at once when you are so close, but there is no need for the landscaped vision. So there it is.

 

[Space Cowboy]

Originally posted by: Space Cowboy
Well,
looks like it's down to these two.

CRT

LCD

Any final words of wisdom?

Thanks
Cowboy

It would be nice to be able to compare these side by side.

When I last looked at LCD's I hate to admit it but I liked the NEC'S with the glass coating over the panel. They looked sharper for some reason.

Still wavering between these two?

Thanks
Cowboy

 

[Hadsus]

Space Cowboy get the LCD if for no other reason that Dell's return policy is very permissive. Plus, if you don't like it, it is relatively light (compared to the CRT) to repack and ship back. I worked that scenario myself and it turned out well for me. :thumbsup:

 

[racolvin]

Originally posted by: Space Cowboy
Well,
looks like it's down to these two.

CRT

LCD

Any final words of wisdom?

Thanks
Cowboy

Only solidarity to a certain extent: I currently have a Viewsonic G90FB CRT and its been great - no complaints. However, I plunked down the card with Dell today to order the 2405FPW that will replace the Viewsonic.

Why?

Cause I personally like the look of LCD displays, along several lines: I like the form factor, less energy consumption, less weight, I personally have seen no issues with current LCD technology that makes me prefer the CRT picture, and lastly ..... cause I'm a techno-goober with some $ burning a hole in my pocket and the 24" LCD is cool

So, good luck with whatever you choose - I spent my money so I'm comitted now

Cheers! :beer:
R

 

[Space Cowboy]

racolvin

How much did ya get it for? If you don't mind....

Later

 

[racolvin]

I had no nifty coupons or anything, so I paid the $1199 and got free shipping. I tried digging around for some way to finagle a deal to get it cheaper but no joy

Ah well .. its still WAY cheaper than the others in this size, so I won't bitch (too much )

Cheers! :beer:

R

 

[housecat]

all i have to say (ok not really all i have to say), is that overall LCD technology is superior. all things considered.

plus its new age, its nice and thin. from a display quality perspective, they EASILY match CRTs, as they each have their OWN qualities to them.

but if one was wise enough to admit that.. the space/heat/environmental factor just finishes CRTs off.

in my honest opinion, i dont really give a damn about anything other than LCDs offer me much less eyestrain for some reason.

dvi+cleartype just is not going anywhere.. its simply the best way to view text on a PC. i'll never use technology that doenst match or exceed dvi/cleartype's abilities.

 

[Space Cowboy]

Ok .. lets try this.

Is there a Brand of LCD that I could find a Best Buy that will have the corrected issue with the color or lack of color BLACK?

The LCD I did have had the backlight issue and really bothered me? Still going in circles with ZipZoom on that deal.. They are REALLY getting on my nerves. Got a complaint filed with VISA on them and thinkin I will pursue further action if they don't straighten out soon.

Thanks
Cowboy

 

[doublejbass]

Best Buy carries Viewsonics. However, you're going to pay more at a retail chain than you could dealing it up at Dell (I got the 2001FP for $470, and people are scoring 2005FPWs for $416, and there was a deal going on with the 2405FPW for $860, but that's not going right now) and if you're talking about big-ass screens? No, probably not.

One thing I'm curious about, if you don't game, why is your system what it is? I mean, what do you do with the power that you have?

 

[Space Cowboy]

Well.. here's the scoop.

I bought my last new computer in 1990 and pretty much upgraded it till 2000 then still used some parts but upgraded by buying parts from ebay total $300 and had a amd 500 with 256 mb ram.

So what I'm trying to say is I haven't had a new computer since 1990.

I just wanted to build a new one and this is what I came up with. I believe it will last a few years since it's easily upgradeable.

I do allot of multitaskin and I like video's and graphic's. I like listing to music while I surf. And I like the fact everything runs so darn fast now. For instance Office XP Word opens like notepad

Never got into games.

Plus the boss said I could build a smoker. It's only about 2 weeks old.

Funny thing. While I was building this monster my old computer's power supply shorted out and took out both hard drives with it. Kinda like it was mad about being replaced.

I'm looking to get a bigger LCD or CRT to compliment my new rig. I currently have a Hitachi 17" CRT that is awesome and I've had many compliments on how nice and sharp the display is.

I'm looking foward to a 64 bit operating system and from what I saw on Tom's hardware it's being released this month.

I've rambled long enough.
In case you haven't figured it out yet.
I just love computers
Later
Cowboy

 

[Hadsus]

Originally posted by: housecat
all i have to say (ok not really all i have to say), is that overall LCD technology is superior. all things considered.

plus its new age, its nice and thin. from a display quality perspective, they EASILY match CRTs, as they each have their OWN qualities to them.

Totally and utterly wrong. Purely from the standpoint of contrast ratio, which is measured in the hundreds rather than thousands for CRTs, the LCD is gaurenteed to have an inferior image quality compared to the better CRTs. I've verified this myself in side to side comparisons with hi res pictures and most people in the desktop publishing business agree. But, in reality, it's not even close. Just LCD cheering....you are wrong.

Other flaws in LCD technology.....fixed resolution, quality issues (bad/continuously lit pixels, backlighting on many models, especially Dell), no blacks (just play Doom3 to see a rather shocking example). People seem to push aside the black issue. It influences significantly the faithfulness of image reproduction. Consider the HDTV industry. LCD RPTVs are not considered high end just because of this issue. With CRTs, blacks are reproduced faithfully, followed by plasma, DLPs and last, dead last, RP LCDs and LCDs many (most people) are reading with right now.

New age, thin, yadda, yadda, yadda.....sure I'll grant you that. Looks cool. OK. All I care about is the image.

Cowboy, you cannot buy an LCD with good black reproduction.....this is just a flaw in the technology that won't ever be fixed. If you are comparing specs, go with the unit with the highest contrast ratio, all things being equal.

One last note, the LCD advocates will claim problems with geometry, convergence and other old CRT myths. Trust me, more falsehoods, more nonsense. They are wrong.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: Hadsus

Originally posted by: housecat
all i have to say (ok not really all i have to say), is that overall LCD technology is superior. all things considered.

plus its new age, its nice and thin. from a display quality perspective, they EASILY match CRTs, as they each have their OWN qualities to them.

Totally and utterly wrong. Purely from the standpoint of contrast ratio, which is measured in the hundreds rather than thousands for CRTs, the LCD is gaurenteed to have an inferior image quality compared to the better CRTs. I've verified this myself in side to side comparisons with hi res pictures and most people in the desktop publishing business agree. But, in reality, it's not even close. Just LCD cheering....you are wrong.

Other flaws in LCD technology.....fixed resolution, quality issues (bad/continuously lit pixels, backlighting on many models, especially Dell), no blacks (just play Doom3 to see a rather shocking example). People seem to push aside the black issue. It influences significantly the faithfulness of image reproduction. Consider the HDTV industry. LCD RPTVs are not considered high end just because of this issue. With CRTs, blacks are reproduced faithfully, followed by plasma, DLPs and last, dead last, RP LCDs and LCDs many (most people) are reading with right now.

New age, thin, yadda, yadda, yadda.....sure I'll grant you that. Looks cool. OK. All I care about is the image.

Cowboy, you cannot buy an LCD with good black reproduction.....this is just a flaw in the technology that won't ever be fixed. If you are comparing specs, go with the unit with the highest contrast ratio, all things being equal.

One last note, the LCD advocates will claim problems with geometry, convergence and other old CRT myths. Trust me, more falsehoods, more nonsense. They are wrong.

You can get into the technicalitys all you want.

But in practice, the LCD works better and most people prefer it. Yes even side by side, what do you think we went from, plasma to LCD? Or CRT to LCD?

I think we all have our CRTs to compare with here son.



If you can sell someone who owns and uses a 2405 or 2005FPW a CRT then you would be right.

But you'll never do that. Because you are wrong. Its really that simple

On paper, ya you have response time advantages, color advantages... whooptie whoop mother ducker.
In real world use outside of graphic design, LCD simply took over.
No more Mitsu/NEC, and those were some of the best CRTs.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: housecat
If you can sell someone who owns and uses a 2405 or 2005FPW a CRT then you would be right.

But you'll never do that. Because you are wrong. Its really that simple

I own a 2005FPW, but if I didn't frequently move my computer, I'd much prefer a nice high-end CRT for gaming.

 

[Space Cowboy]

Current specs with a Hitachi CM620U

.24 dot pitch
120 hz 800 x 600
15.9 viewable

I think I'll go back to Best Buy and look at the LCDs again then start shoppin

So far I like these:

Dell

NEC

Sony

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: housecat
If you can sell someone who owns and uses a 2405 or 2005FPW a CRT then you would be right.

But you'll never do that. Because you are wrong. Its really that simple

I own a 2005FPW, but if I didn't frequently move my computer, I'd much prefer a nice high-end CRT for gaming.

find me someone who this guy has actually convinced to give up their 2405 as their primary (and only) display forever, for a CRT.

not gonna happen.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: housecat

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: housecat
If you can sell someone who owns and uses a 2405 or 2005FPW a CRT then you would be right.

But you'll never do that. Because you are wrong. Its really that simple

I own a 2005FPW, but if I didn't frequently move my computer, I'd much prefer a nice high-end CRT for gaming.

find me someone who this guy has actually convinced to give up their 2405 as their primary (and only) display forever, for a CRT.

not gonna happen.

So suddenly you remove the 2005FPW from your argument because one person doesn't agree?

Of course no one will want to go from a 2405 to a CRT of any type - the closest thing is the Sony GDM-FW900, which is no longer produced, and is smaller as far as visible area anyway. There isn't exactly anything to compare it to for anyone who needs 24" of viewable space.

My point is, it just seems like you're trying so hard to justify your LCD purchase here. I think LCD's are great (I wouldn't have bought one myself if I thought they weren't worth the money) - but just realize that there are definite advantages to CRT's (just like there are for LCD's), and just because someone picks a CRT over an LCD, doesn't make their opinion invalid simply because it's not the option you chose.

 

[Ackmed]

If you would rather have a CRT, whats stopping you?

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
If you would rather have a CRT, whats stopping you?

I live on the fourth floor of my dorm, move my computer often, do LAN parties, etc. If I could afford to have one of each, I'd do so, but that's a little out of my reach at this point.

Edit: I'm not trying to say that I think CRT's are better in every way, in fact I much prefer LCD's for text - but I do a lot of gaming, especially fast-paced FPS gaming, and I would be lying if I said I didn't miss 1600x1200 at 109Hz.

 

[Space Cowboy]

I know that what I can get the Dell for: $950.00

Any of you smart shoppers know where I can get the best price on the Nec?

This is the good one right?

Thanks
Cowboy

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Space Cowboy
I know that what I can get the Dell for: $950.00

Any of you smart shoppers know where I can get the best price on the Nec?

This is the good one right?

Thanks
Cowboy

I bought that monitor in December through Dell for about $550ish with tax, I believe. I'm not sure if they still sell it or not, since it's apparently recently discontinued.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Any of you smart shoppers know where I can get the best price on the Nec?

The link you have posted is the best price I've ever seen on those. I paid quite a bit more then that for mine.

 

[housecat]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: housecat

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

Originally posted by: housecat
If you can sell someone who owns and uses a 2405 or 2005FPW a CRT then you would be right.

But you'll never do that. Because you are wrong. Its really that simple

I own a 2005FPW, but if I didn't frequently move my computer, I'd much prefer a nice high-end CRT for gaming.

find me someone who this guy has actually convinced to give up their 2405 as their primary (and only) display forever, for a CRT.

not gonna happen.

So suddenly you remove the 2005FPW from your argument because one person doesn't agree?

Of course no one will want to go from a 2405 to a CRT of any type - the closest thing is the Sony GDM-FW900, which is no longer produced, and is smaller as far as visible area anyway. There isn't exactly anything to compare it to for anyone who needs 24" of viewable space.

My point is, it just seems like you're trying so hard to justify your LCD purchase here. I think LCD's are great (I wouldn't have bought one myself if I thought they weren't worth the money) - but just realize that there are definite advantages to CRT's (just like there are for LCD's), and just because someone picks a CRT over an LCD, doesn't make their opinion invalid simply because it's not the option you chose.

Nah, 2005 isnt removed I just didnt type it.

Way to nitpick to win an argument tho, I'll edit it to please you. Didnt realize you were one of those types, mispell a word and the spelling queen comes out.. great.


Me trying hard? I'm just presenting the facts. Its all this technical mumbo jumbo about CRTs having a 1ms response rate that is where things get really dumb.

LCD is better, no one is going to dump a nice LCD like the 2005 for a crappy old square CRT that takes up a 3x3' area and weighs 75lbs sorry.

PS. That guy didnt say he would swap his 2005 for a CRT anyway.. he said CRTs are too heavy to do what he needs..

HMMMMMM sounds like what I've been saying, overall most people are going to want the LCD right? Isnt that what I said?

Thats right noobcake.



The sad truth for you is, besides graphical professionals- overall the LCD wins everytime.

All I can say is, enjoy your CRT.. it will be funny when you wake up and own a nice LCD.
I doubt you'll bring your rotten face around here when that inevitably will happen..

unless you are hoarding a few Diamondtrons in your basement because you heard the unfathomable happened, they are discontinued :thumbsup:

 

[Acanthus]

Poor blacks and ghosting will always keep me away from LCDs. Someday they will get it right, but for now, im stuck with CRTs.

 

[NightCrawler]

Originally posted by: Space Cowboy
Well,
looks like it's down to these two.

CRT

LCD

Any final words of wisdom?

Thanks
Cowboy

Buy two 21" NEC